Exemples d'utilisation de Are not objectively en Anglais et leurs traductions en Français
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
SUMMARY- CASE C-43/07 which are not objectively comparable.
The French Government contends, however,that that difference in treatment can be explained by the fact that those two situations are not objectively comparable.
Good presidents are not objectively“good”… they are just part of the national myth.
The Netherlands Government concludes that the difference in treatment at issue in the main proceedings relates to situations which are not objectively comparable and that therefore there is no discrimination.
First, the study samples are not objectively homogeneous and do not comply with quota criteria.
On traduit aussi
In that respect, it must be stated that,contrary to the Netherlands Government's contention, that difference in treatment cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable.
First, the samples used in the study are not objectively homogeneous and do not comply with quota criteria.
It wishes to know whether that measure, which it considers to be a restriction on the freedom of establishment,may nevertheless be justified either on the ground that it relates to situations that are not objectively comparable or by an overriding reason in the general interest.
Such a restriction is permissible only if it relates to situations which are not objectively comparable or if it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest judgment in Nordea Bank Danmark, C-48/13, EU: C: 2014:2087, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited.
According to consistent case-law, for a national tax provision to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital,the resulting difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest Amurta, paragraph 32 and case-law cited.
The Netherlands, German andPortuguese Governments submit that those two situations are not objectively comparable, as resident subsidiaries and non-resident subsidiaries are not in comparable tax situations with regard to a tax scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
The case-law of the Court shows that, for national tax legislation such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital,it is necessary that the difference in treatment concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest.
Such a difference in treatment is permissible only if it relates to situations which are not objectively comparable or if it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest see, inter alia, judgment in Nordea Bank, C-48/13, EU: C: 2014:2087, paragraph 23.
As has been recalled in paragraphs 58 and 83 of the present judgment, for national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital,the difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest.
Such restrictions are permissible only if they relate to situations which are not objectively comparable or if they are justified by an overriding reason in the public interest see, inter alia, judgment of 17 December 2015 in Timac Agro Deutschland, EU: C: 2015:829, C-388/14, paragraph 26.
Board policy also does not contemplate that the term"cumulative" means that a number of events, which are not objectively traumatic on an individual basis, can be considered cumulatively traumatic.
In order for that difference in treatment to be compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the freedom of establishment,it must relate to situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the general interest see judgment in X Holding, C-337/08, EU: C: 2010:89, paragraph 20.
In order for such a difference in treatment to be compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty on thefree movement of capital, it must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason of public interest Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 167.
Such a difference in treatment, which in the main proceedings in the present case results solely from the Danish rules,is permissible only if it relates to situations which are not objectively comparable or if it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest judgment of 6 October 2015, Finanzamt Linz, C-66/14, EU: C: 2015:661, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited.
In order for such a difference in treatment to be compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty on the freedom of establishment,it must relate to situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the general interest see, to that effect, Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation[2006] ECR I-11753, paragraph 167.